A new survey has found consumers are extremely interested in the prospect of an Apple-branded television, and are willing to pay a 20 percent premium over existing TV prices for such a device.

The survey, by AlphaWise and Morgan Stanley, polled 1,568 heads of U.S. households regarding the "smart TV" market. It found that just 18 percent of homes have a smart TV, while 13 percent of respondents said they didn't know whether their TV is considered "smart."

The poll shows that those who own smart TVs connected to the Internet actually spend less time accessing Internet content through their TV than those who do not own a smart TV.

"This suggests that Smart TVs currently available on the market do not offer easy-to-use software to integrate Internet content into users' TV experience," analyst Katy Huberty said.

Based on this, she believes that the survey shows Apple has a strong opportunity to disrupt the TV market, similar to how the iPhone made Internet consumption via a handset relevant.

The survey found that 11 percent of respondents said they would be "extremely interested" in purchasing a so-called "iTV" from Apple, while 36 percent said they are "somewhat interested." The name was used in the survey to avoid confusion with the current Apple TV set-top box.

The fact that 47 percent said they are "interested" in an Apple television has made Huberty particularly bullish on the prospect of such a device. She noted that 23 percent of consumers said they were interested in purchasing an iPhone in a February 2007 survey, while 21 percent of respondents said they wanted to buy an iPad in April of 2010.

With 11 percent "extremely interested" in an Apple television, that would translate to over 13 million potential units sold in the U.S. And another 36 percent "somewhat interested" would be an incremental 43 million units.

The potential sales suggest only one Apple "iTV" per household, but the AlphaWise and Morgan Stanley survey found that the average home has 2.8 televisions, and 14 percent of respondents said they would consider replacing "all" of their TVs with Apple's hypothetical product, while 9 percent said they could replace "most."

And respondents also signaled they are willing to pay a premium for an Apple television: 46 percent said they are willing to pay over $1,000, while 10 percent are willing to pay over $2,000.

On average, respondents said they would pay $1,060 for an "iTV," which is a 20 percent premium over the $884 paid for the current average television set. Respondents ages 18 to 29 showed the most willingness to invest in an Apple television, indicating they would pay a 32 percent premium for such a device.

Among potential hardware features, respondents said they are most interested in high screen quality from an Apple television. As for the software, consumers were mostly interested in the device being easy to use, particularly when searching for content.

Huberty has concluded that Apple's strategy could focus less on content and more on the operating system of a potential television set. She believes if the company were to deliver a strong experience with search, ease of use, and control, it could differentiate from current sets on the market.

Buzz about an Apple television set picked up last week when the company's chief executive, Tim Cook, said in an interview with NBC that he feels current televisions are outdated pieces of technology.

"When I go into my living room and turn on the TV, I feel like I have gone backwards in time by 20 to 30 years," Cook told Brian Williams on Rock Center. "It's an area of intense interest. I can't say more than that."

Rumors have an Apple television set have persisted for years, but the possibility of an enhanced Apple TV set-top box with cable connectivity cropped up this August. A report from The Wall Street Journal revealed Apple has considered building its own cable box that would include an iOS-like user interface and advanced cloud-based DVR functionality that would blur the line between live and on-demand content.

I guess I am in the majority as I WON"T pay a premium for an Apple tv. I have a Mac Book Pro and a Mini, so why do I need an new tv? Just because it has the Apple logo? NO. I watch tv for tv's sake and none other. My 62" Samsung is getting a little long in the tooth, but I still gets wonderful 1080P images out of it, so why bother.

How do Samsung and Google smart TV's work? Are users forced to upgrade their TV to get the latest and greatest software or could they have a TV for 5+ years and still get all the "smart" benefits from it?

A report from The Wall Street Journal revealed Apple has considered building its own cable box that would include an iOS-like user interface and advanced cloud-based DVR functionality that would blur the line between live and on-demand content.

Well. I hope they take their time to get it right. I don't watch that much T.V these days.

I have a 50 inch Panasonic, Sky Box Package with phone, channels galore and internet for £24 a month. I don't see how Apple are going to do it.

They have 120 Billion in the bank. How serious are they about a market that isn't making money on the actual sets. Though Apple will no doubt charge a premium...on any such set. Mythical as it now is. It would be wonderful to throw out the entire nest of Sky Box, PS3, TV wires, AtV box etc and just have one box to rule them all controlled by an iPad/pod/phone/nano remote...with Siri and gestures.

To me it's about services. Content. Programmes (limited access). Games (they have the app store). Internet. (they have that and iCloud) Facetime. (they have that...)

Those they can deliver bar universal programming. Unless they bought out Disney and WBs. But they had their chance when Apple was at $700 to become agressive with a large acquisition.

I think Apple will do TV like they did 'games'. THey'll almost fall into by accident. Letting the pieces fall into place and jump. But not quite. It seems they're actually keeping their eye on the ball with this one. It's not the same as iTunes and the iPod. Hollywood and TV moguls have seen Apple gain power in music and they'll want a bigger cut and to keep most power.

How Apple gets around that? Leave the negotiations to Eddy, I guess. I see Stalemate.

Apple are like the Sony of the 21st Century. I guess the 'TV' is the only jewel left from the Apple Crown and the circle will be complete (unless you're Dave and want an X-Mac...)

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

1. Strange that fewer people access the internet who have a 'smart TV' than the ones who don't own (that crap; I have it and don't use it as I find it to be...crap)

2. I belong to that 10% of people who pay over $2000 even though I don't watch that much TV. Actually non, only movies or a good series (to me: Sopranos, The Wire, Boardwalk Empire). So although it's not turned on every day, I do see the darn black thing in the living room and will buy B&O again if Apple doesn't create a TV set. Something I cannot phantom, but ok.

3. I seriously hope Apple will look at the prospect of a TV set on a global scale and not limit it to US only. Meaning they will need to think of subtitles, countries that are government funded as opposed to ad revenue and other local things like that.

So if users are willing to pay a 20% premium then it means Apple could enjoy a 25% margin on their TV vs 5% everyone else is getting.

I don't think that is how this works. Apple uses quality components to create their products, resulting in top notch stuff. Competition tries to make things cheap because they don't understand why people would pay for quality and therefor use inferior components. Resulting in crap products, but getting bigger market share because not everyone can afford more expensive products.

In the long run however, things might actually be cheaper if you buy premium over cheap.

How do Samsung and Google smart TV's work? Are users forced to upgrade their TV to get the latest and greatest software or could they have a TV for 5+ years and still get all the "smart" benefits from it?

I have a Samsung smart TV. I've yet to see an OS update but the apps are updated very frequency. It suffers from Playstation 3 syndrome though - the updates are too regular. Waiting for it to update when all I want to do is watch BBC iPlayer is very annoying!

Well. I hope they take their time to get it right. I don't watch that much T.V these days.

I have a 50 inch Panasonic, Sky Box Package with phone, channels galore and internet for £24 a month. I don't see how Apple are going to do it.

They have 120 Billion in the bank. How serious are they about a market that isn't making money on the actual sets. Though Apple will no doubt charge a premium...on any such set. Mythical as it now is. It would be wonderful to throw out the entire nest of Sky Box, PS3, TV wires, AtV box etc and just have one box to rule them all controlled by an iPad/pod/phone/nano remote...with Siri and gestures.

To me it's about services. Content. Programmes (limited access). Games (they have the app store). Internet. (they have that and iCloud) Facetime. (they have that...)

Those they can deliver bar universal programming. Unless they bought out Disney and WBs. But they had their chance when Apple was at $700 to become agressive with a large acquisition.

I think Apple will do TV like they did 'games'. THey'll almost fall into by accident. Letting the pieces fall into place and jump. But not quite. It seems they're actually keeping their eye on the ball with this one. It's not the same as iTunes and the iPod. Hollywood and TV moguls have seen Apple gain power in music and they'll want a bigger cut and to keep most power.

How Apple gets around that? Leave the negotiations to Eddy, I guess. I see Stalemate.

Apple are like the Sony of the 21st Century. I guess the 'TV' is the only jewel left from the Apple Crown and the circle will be complete (unless you're Dave and want an X-Mac...)

20% premium over which sets?... the average set price at walmart ?... if so then, as usual, Customers are being disingenuous. (20% more on a cheap set, is still a cheap set)

the iPad is the state-of-the-art tablet in both price and features, but in the tv market you only get one or the other...and every one wants SOTA at cheap prices

SONY (perhaps Panasonic too) is a brand that is over all a quality brand.
SONY still is if you consister a 25000 dollar, 4k resolution, 84inch tv set. (and "includes" free 4k movies LOL)

my point is DO NOT think that apple is going to introduce a "cheap" set ... NOTHING apple does is cheap.

the late Steve Jobs loved SONY products, so expect the price of APPLE sets to be in line with SONY's top sets. Meaning apple will be providing a similiar experience, if not better than SONY at the SAME price. (which means Apple will not be completing on price with Sony... siblings if you will... )

SHARP makes the best super sized sets. IMO (70 inches and larger) they also other make the best LCD set (the elite line but guess what it is priced at ... an insane 5000 dollars)

I dont expect APPLE to charge 5000 dollars for their TV set, but we may find out that compared to Sharp you will be giving up about 20" inches for the Apple set... (80" Sharp, 4500 dollars which will be 55" Apple set,
70" Sharp 2700 dollars which will be a 50" Apple Set.
60" Sharp (too cheap, but for this Comparison ) 1600 dollars, a 46" Apple set)

(personally i "lust" after the 80" set, the first set where one needs to step back while watching it at the store... oh SO big!! LOL if it was not true.

97% of car owners would be interested in a Porsche (and 47% would be willing to pay a 20% premium). Only 1% of car owners currently own a Porsche, Ferrari or Aston Martin. 1% of the 1% have no idea if their car is a Porsche, Ferrari or Aston Martin.

I don't think that is how this works. Apple uses quality components to create their products, resulting in top notch stuff. Competition tries to make things cheap because they don't understand why people would pay for quality and therefor use inferior components. Resulting in crap products, but getting bigger market share because not everyone can afford more expensive products.
In the long run however, things might actually be cheaper if you buy premium over cheap.

That's right. Nobody else in the entire world apart from Apple understands that people will pay more for a higher quality products.

Shhhh, not so loud!

You don't want anybody else to twig on to this and start using higher quality components manufactured by ...

I have a Samsung smart TV. I've yet to see an OS update but the apps are updated very frequency. It suffers from Playstation 3 syndrome though - the updates are too regular. Waiting for it to update when all I want to do is watch BBC iPlayer is very annoying!

Hence Apple usually tends to wait until they've the product more perfected before shipping. I feel your pain bro, PS3 user here.

20% premium over which sets?... the average set price at walmart ?... if so then, as usual, Customers are being disingenuous. (20% more on a cheap set, is still a cheap set)the iPad is the state-of-the-art tablet in both price and features, but in the tv market you only get one or the other...and every one wants SOTA at cheap prices
SONY (perhaps Panasonic too) is a brand that is over all a quality brand.
SONY still is if you consister a 25000 dollar, 4k resolution, 84inch tv set. (and "includes" free 4k movies LOL)
my point is DO NOT think that apple is going to introduce a "cheap" set ... NOTHING apple does is cheap.
the late Steve Jobs loved SONY products, so expect the price of APPLE sets to be in line with SONY's top sets. Meaning apple will be providing a similiar experience, if not better than SONY at the SAME price. (which means Apple will not be completing on price with Sony... siblings if you will... )
SHARP makes the best super sized sets. IMO (70 inches and larger) they also other make the best LCD set (the elite line but guess what it is priced at ... an insane 5000 dollars)
I dont expect APPLE to charge 5000 dollars for their TV set, but we may find out that compared to Sharp you will be giving up about 20" inches for the Apple set... (80" Sharp, 4500 dollars which will be 55" Apple set,
70" Sharp 2700 dollars which will be a 50" Apple Set.
60" Sharp (too cheap, but for this Comparison ) 1600 dollars, a 46" Apple set)
(personally i "lust" after the 80" set, the first set where one needs to step back while watching it at the store... oh SO big!! LOL if it was not true.
APPLE makes products akin to the XBR line of TV sets...

This isn't universally true though, is it.

As much as I love my iPad mini, a glance at the screen shows you it's anything but 'state of the art'.

"The poll shows that those who own smart TVs connected to the Internet actually spend less time accessing Internet content through their TV than those who do not own a smart TV."

It seems this quote needs more explanation. If those who don't own a smartTV are accessing internet content through their TV more frequently than those with a smartTV that tells me some other device is in play. It would be nice if they dug a bit on this and discovered the prevalence of AppleTVs, Rokus, and the like. It seems consumers don't mind running their whole interface through a box if it gives them the content they are seeking.

People arent going to pay more for an AppleTV, just to pay more for an AppleTV. Its going to have to do something clearly better to be successful. The main reason Apple products are so popular are due to word of mouth, most of us started using Apple products for the same reason. We had some friend who has a cool looking Apple product and who either A) shows us some cool stuff it can do or B) tells us about the awesome experience.

Theres simply nothing awesome about a $2000 50" flatscreen with an Apple logo on it. Because there are plenty of awesome looking $500-1000 50" flatscreens that work perfectly well and dont suffer from issues that Windows computers & non-Apple smartphones/tablets did. This isnt Mac vs PC, where people are concerned about stability & viruses. This isnt iPhone/iPad vs. Android where people are concerned about battery life, apps and build quality.

This is TV. I dont have to explain to my 65 year old mom how to use a TV, unlike a smartphone/laptop/tablet.. TV is something she's used all her life. For Apple to be successful they need a completely out of the box idea for how tv WORKS.. not just how it looks. GoogleTV tried that, but it was too clunky, cumbersome and technical to use.

Apple needs an easy to use interface, that noone else has thought of. And it needs to have features noone else has been able to bring to the market. A killer feature like being able to watch any program, from any date/time whenever you want. Imagine all of your TV programming being either DVR or On Demand. HBOGo comes close, but its just HBO material. If Apple can take that concept and make it work for every major channel.. all in one place on the same tv.. then people will buy it like crazy.

"The poll shows that those who own smart TVs connected to the Internet actually spend less time accessing Internet content through their TV than those who do not own a smart TV."
It seems this quote needs more explanation. If those who don't own a smartTV are accessing internet content through their TV more frequently than those with a smartTV that tells me some other device is in play. It would be nice if they dug a bit on this and discovered the prevalence of AppleTVs, Rokus, and the like. It seems consumers don't mind running their whole interface through a box if it gives them the content they are seeking.

right, and it could also mean that they already had a STB with streaming content before getting a "smart" TV. Or just that they use some other device...Tablet, Smart phone, Game console, BD player? The latter two have had internet based feature much longer than TVs.

Originally Posted by Rogifan
How do Samsung and Google smart TV's work? Are users forced to upgrade their TV to get the latest and greatest software or could they have a TV for 5+ years and still get all the "smart" benefits from it?

Simple: they just never update the software ever, at any time.

Originally Posted by allenbf

Anyway, the magic of Apple TV won't be the hardware to many people (although I'm sure it'd be excellent). The magic will be if Apple can break the current "bundled" channel setup.

I'm doing some research into this whole schpiel and coming up with some more ideas for the future of the Apple TV, so I'm probably gonna hold off on my judgement of box or TV until I'm done there.

But you're absolutely right about this. This is the crux of the entire argument; hardware is meaningless unless they've destroyed the telecoms.

97% of car owners would be interested in a Porsche (and 47% would be willing to pay a 20% premium). Only 1% of car owners currently own a Porsche, Ferrari or Aston Martin. 1% of the 1% have no idea if their car is a Porsche, Ferrari or Aston Martin.

Perhaps...early adopters can drive sales. I paid $1,200 for two original iPhones. One for me and one for my daughter. I paid ~$300 for the original ATV. I was happy with both those purchases.

Also, 70%-75% of the US economy is driven by the consumer. But, most people don't realize is that 50% of the US economy is driven by the top 10% income earners. That's Apple's target.

Originally Posted by Rogifan
So they stick software in the TV but never update it? I get updates on my DirecTV box without having to purchase a new box. I can't believe it would be that different with an actual TV set.

Old roommate had a Sony smart TV. Lived together two years, and I don't recall it ever getting an update. Nor the Sony Blu-ray player to which it was attached, and I guess the latter, at least, is surprising to me in retrospect.

2. I belong to that 10% of people who pay over $2000 even though I don't watch that much TV. Actually non, only movies or a good series (to me: Sopranos, The Wire, Boardwalk Empire). So although it's not turned on every day, I do see the darn black thing in the living room and will buy B&O again if Apple doesn't create a TV set. Something I cannot phantom, but ok.

20% over normal TV prices is still like 1200% under B&O prices. The Beovision 11 is an amazing $10,500 for a 46" 3D HDTV. The base model 40" is $5,995.

For reference the top end 64" Sony Bravia XBR (fronted with Gorilla glass no less) is $5,199. The mid grade 46" Sony Bravia HX850 is $1599. The value 46" BX450 is a mere $699 which is slightly more expensive than the equivalent Vizios and Samsungs.

If I had money to burn I wouldn't get the B&O but the new 85" 4K Sony XBR for $25K. Folks that buy B&O stuff isn't the top 10% but in that 1% category.

You don't buy B&O for quality components.

I would expect any Apple TV to be priced comparably with Sony's XBR line with the same quality levels.

Old roommate had a Sony smart TV. Lived together two years, and I don't recall it ever getting an update. Nor the Sony Blu-ray player to which it was attached, and I guess the latter, at least, is surprising to me in retrospect.

You can sometimes get firmware updates if you want. Most don't bother unless there's something wrong.

I don't think that is how this works. Apple uses quality components to create their products, resulting in top notch stuff. Competition tries to make things cheap because they don't understand why people would pay for quality and therefor use inferior components. Resulting in crap products, but getting bigger market share because not everyone can afford more expensive products.
In the long run however, things might actually be cheaper if you buy premium over cheap.

Please. Once you get away from wal-mart and best buy house brands, there a re LOTS of quality TVs out there.

My biggest concern over an Apple branded television experience is it will begin the push for pay per view on everything you watch.

3. I seriously hope Apple will look at the prospect of a TV set on a global scale and not limit it to US only. Meaning they will need to think of subtitles, countries that are government funded as opposed to ad revenue and other local things like that.

They don't need a TV set for that. Just better store deals and requirements.

Old roommate had a Sony smart TV. Lived together two years, and I don't recall it ever getting an update. Nor the Sony Blu-ray player to which it was attached, and I guess the latter, at least, is surprising to me in retrospect.

I have a Samsung Blu Ray player, it seems every time I turn it on it asks if I want to update. I hate the thing anyway, worst tech purchase I've ever made. I'd toss it but the kids use it from time to time.

I just don't see the hype behind Apple making a TV and why people would be willing to pay a 20% premium over a top of the line Sony or Samsung TV, which right now are the kings of quality. They certainly wouldn't capture the lowend of the spectrum, those who would spend no more than 600 for a TV and they would alienate almost everyone who's bought a TV in the past few years...these aren't phones were talking here.

Now I could understand if Apple revamped its Apple TV box, which offers everything to EVERYONE and would be much more widely available and accessible.

I personally could see this Apple TV being akin to the Xbox with Kinect (voice and gesture controls) but with individual channels. Unless they have some new pricing scheme for TV i just dont see TV ever being a big Apple thing.

Sure, an 18 year old is gonna buy a $1000 Apple TV set. An 18 year old saying this is not much different to a 14 year old daring someone to do something and saying they'll give them a million dollars. It's all talk.

Besides, the Apple TV, if it exists or ever comes out will NEVER be $1000. $1500 absolute minimum.

Originally Posted by ifail
I just don't see the hype behind Apple making a TV and why people would be willing to pay a 20% premium over a top of the line Sony or Samsung TV, which right now are the kings of quality.

If that's "quality", I'd hate to see what isn't.

The premium is for a usable interface.

Originally Posted by Evilution
Besides, the Apple TV, if it exists or ever comes out will NEVER be $1000. $1500 absolute minimum.

I don't think that is how this works. Apple uses quality components to create their products, resulting in top notch stuff.

To an extent, I think it is. Apple can command economies of scale so they can get better product that costs less to build. Part of this is that they don't have so many bloody variations to chase down, making logistics and support more complicated then it needs to be.

I bought a 55" Samsung almost a year ago and the picture on it is fabulous, nothing other than Samsungs own lineup has come close to trumping the TV that i currently have other than obscene new tech that isn't practical to buy yet (4k). My TV is not a "Smart TV" but why would i spend an extra 2-300 dollars on a TV with apps when i own an Xbox 360/PS3/Wii U and an Apple TV? Just owning my Apple TV with its Airplay capability makes owning a Smart TV pointless.

Originally Posted by ifail
I bought a 55" Samsung almost a year ago and the picture on it is fabulous…

Oh, sure! No, no, I definitely believe their panels are some of the best.

But that's all a TV is right now. The panel. No intelligence, no software, nothing. The less than mediocre attempts at "smart" TV software so far only serve to detract from the quality of the hardware.

I bought a 55" Samsung almost a year ago and the picture on it is fabulous, nothing other than Samsungs own lineup has come close to trumping the TV that i currently have other than obscene new tech that isn't practical to buy yet (4k). My TV is not a "Smart TV" but why would i spend an extra 2-300 dollars on a TV with apps when i own an Xbox 360/PS3/Wii U and an Apple TV? Just owning my Apple TV with its Airplay capability makes owning a Smart TV pointless.

Personally, I'm ambivalent about an Apple TV, I've even disconnected my existing AppleTV. No matter what you think of Apple or the possibility of an Apple screen, I'm not convinced Samsung makes top-notch TVs. I really should have held out for a Panasonic. Sony seems to make OK TVs, but not for the price.

I currently own a Samsung plasma made about three years ago. No matter what I do, I can't get it to show acceptable blacks without crushing blacks. A test pattern bears this out.

A power outage also netted a couple dead pixel rows.

No matter what I do to the settings, it takes two button presses and two seconds to switch from one source to the next. Newer models fix this particular stupidity, but I have no reason to go back to them for a while for that reason.

"The poll shows that those who own smart TVs connected to the Internet actually spend less time accessing Internet content through their TV than those who do not own a smart TV."

This doesn't seem to make much sense. If one makes the logical assumption that those who don't own smart TVs spend no time accessing the internet through their smart TV (since they don't own one), then how do people who DO own smart TVs spend even less time accessing internet content through their smart TVs.

Group A spends zero time accessing internet through a smart TV (because they don't own one).
Group B spends less time than group A accessing internet through their smart TV.